Apple Watch Drops to Just 5% Share of Wearables Market as Basic Fitness Trackers 'Reign Supreme'

[truthertech]

Apparently you lost the entire thread context, which is about Apple Watch.

It's tied to iOS.

Apple has made sure no one can directly compete with their Watch, by making sure no one else can access things like Apple Pay on their device, access known WiFi sites and passwords, etc. Competing watches cannot access their own phone based watch app store. Competing watches cannot transfer data to Apple Health, AFAIK. Nor directly reply to texts or emails.

It's like how Microsoft used to be accused of being evil, by keeping secret APIs just for its own use, so its own apps would be faster.

In other words, the Apple Watch doesn't directly compete with anything, because Apple won't let anyone else directly compete with it.

As they say, stop digging when you are in a hole.

First, Apple allows in the app store all the competing watches their own apps to transfer and store data. More importantly, your contention that Apple doesn't allow competitors to store data in HealthKit (yes that's the name, not Apple Heath) completely wrong. Oops. Here's just one compilation

http://www.macworld.co.uk/feature/i...ers-that-work-with-apples-health-app-3605284/

Ironically, it's Fitbit that won't allow its users to store and track data in HealthKit because they want to force you to use their app, which Apple has graciously allowed on the Apple App store Fortunately, the magnanimous Apple has also allowed an app called Sync Solver on the store as a work around to get your Fitbit data to sync with HealthKit. Yes, indeed, we see your point that Apple Watch is only succeeding because it won't allow any competitors to do things like sync with HealthKit.

You also know you are in a hole when you find yourself arguing that Apple should spend multiple years and billions of dollars developing Apple Watch to enter a highly competitive market and then when Apple comes from behind to dominate that market you cry "unfair" and want Apple to hand over its proprietary technology so tiny little companies like Google, Samsung, Lenovo, Xiaomi, Garmin and others can catch back up. Sorry, but despite your wishes, Apple and the rest of these companies are going to have to keep competing for consumers.

And finally, if you want to generate a "ripple in the force" go on line and argue your position that Apple should turn over our financial information and our passwords, and allow access our wifi, to Xiaomi, Lenovo, Samsung and the rest, who are going to be entrusted with the security and privacy of that information, all to satisfy your sense of fairness.

 

[the8thark]

What percentage of the total smart watch profit does Apple take?

The answer to this is the better indication of Apple's place in the market.

 

[deany]

Love my apple watch esp. contactless payment and having the dreadful sound of the phone ringing / text silenced for ever.

Anyone seen or used the Xiaomi watch v apple Watch
thanks

 

[kdarling]

...Apple has also allowed an app called Sync Solver on the store as a work around to get your Fitbit data to sync with HealthKit...

Good to know. That's why I said, "AFAIK".

You also know you are in a hole when you find yourself arguing that Apple should spend multiple years and billions of dollars developing Apple Watch to enter a highly competitive market and then when Apple comes from behind to dominate that market you cry "unfair" and want Apple to hand over its proprietary technology ...

I didn't say it was unfair, nor that they had to share anything.

I'm pointing out the fact that nothing is allowed to directly compete with the Apple Watch on an iPhone, nor does the Apple Watch get sold much for usage outside of the iPhone.

Thus it makes little sense to say that "it owns the smartwatch marketplace" when the only market it's really in, is its own iOS walled garden. It would be more correct to say that "it owns the iOS smartwatch marketplace".

That's all. It's not a negative thing. It's just the way it is.

 

[dannys1]

A joke is when people laugh. Nobody is laughing my friend.

I think some of the 51 people that liked the comment might disagree with you my friend.

 

[Born Again]

I think some of the 51 people that liked the comment might disagree with you my friend.

i was one of those 51 people that liked your comment.

Liked and laugh aren't the same. I don't believe you were joking either my friend. A lot of fanboys bring up the "ferrari to honda" comparison when discussing an iphone to an android phone. still apples to oranges.

 

[truthertech]

Good to know. That's why I said, "AFAIK".



I didn't say it was unfair, nor that they had to share anything.

I'm pointing out the fact that nothing is allowed to directly compete with the Apple Watch on an iPhone, nor does the Apple Watch get sold much for usage outside of the iPhone.

Thus it makes little sense to say that "it owns the smartwatch marketplace" when the only market it's really in, is its own iOS walled garden. It would be more correct to say that "it owns the iOS smartwatch marketplace".

That's all. It's not a negative thing. It's just the way it is.

Why do you refuse to accept that all the trackers/smart watches can work directly with iOS and the iPhone so it is not a walled garden? My partner has a Fitbit and ALL interaction is with iOS! Open your mind, it's a lot healthier.

 

[aarontsuru]

I have literally NEVER seen anyone wearing one of these in public, and I live in a major city.

I live in NYC and see them all the time. So, does my anecdotal evidence cancel out yours?

 

[Iconoclysm]

Sure, but that is your analogy and I was responding to the other poster's, as you say "extreme" analogy. I think yours is more on point except for the luxury part. The basic AW is no more luxury anymore than a stripped BMW X1. Decent, but not luxurious.

The building materials are what make it luxurious. And you're exactly right, "luxury SUV's" do not have to be luxurious.
[doublepost=1481194776][/doublepost]

I mean truly antonymous - LTE/wireless. Put on your Apple watch and leave the house knowing you have access to texts, email, gps, apple pay etc.

I see, not sure I'd even really want that functionality with the added cellular provider costs.
[doublepost=1481194924][/doublepost]

How do you know how many watches Apple has sold? These are made up WAG's. I suspect they are selling more smart watches than every other SW manufacturer combined, and most "analysts" have said the same thing, but nobody knows. If you were Apple, if sales were very good, would you want your competitors to have that information so they could benefit from knowing how good of a market it is? Especially as you are sorting out the different directions you are sorting through with a new product line and building an ecosystem around the AW, e.g., HealthKit, ResearchKit, iOS, etc.

Samsung and others use Apple's data, e.g., the popularity of the Jet black model, to make decisions.

That's exactly how Apple has described it as well. I'm just pointing out that any fear Apple has about AW sales numbers probably would come from people not even knowing what good numbers should be.

 

[Chupa Chupa]

The building materials are what make it luxurious. And you're exactly right, "luxury SUV's" do not have to be luxurious.

There is certainly nothing luxurious about either aluminum or stainless steel watch cases unless you you believe Johnny Ive's accent bumps up the quality, just because it transforms into al-u-min-i-um. Those are available in a $75 Timex. I bought a Milanese band off Amazon for $8 shipped. Nearly Identical in feel and function as the official Apple band. Apple's rubber sports band is, well, rubber. Nothing luxurious about that.

An overpriced product -- which is what the non-sport AW really is, doesn't make it luxurious. It is a luxury item just because it is expensive for what the buyer gets, which is pretty much exactly what the Sport model buyers get plus a different case or band. But there is no fine craftsmanship or unique materials of any AW model. It's just mass produced gadgetry, no more special than a Fitbit or Fossil.

Let's not confuse AW with truly luxurious fine watches. That is just silly.

 

[marty11]

The building materials are what make it luxurious. And you're exactly right, "luxury SUV's" do not have to be luxurious.
[doublepost=1481194776][/doublepost]

I see, not sure I'd even really want that functionality with the added cellular provider costs.
[doublepost=1481194924][/doublepost]

That's exactly how Apple has described it as well. I'm just pointing out that any fear Apple has about AW sales numbers probably would come from people not even knowing what good numbers should be.

At most it would be an additional $10 through most carriers. Steve Jobs would have negotiated that down to free with existing data plans. But we're stuck with Tim.